When Rationalism Apes Dogma: Some Constructive Criticism for the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard

by: Andrew Tripp

In the past few years, as the atheist movement has really begun to gain traction and grow, it has become generally accepted in the community that trying to organize a bunch of nonbelievers is akin to herding cats. Since what could arguably be called the beginning of the movement in 2004, there hasn’t really been a huge emphasis on activism.  Especially in America, where atheists are particularly loathed people, most organizations have been focusing more on building safe communities rather than getting out and making change. The rationale is entirely logical, but as I’ve written before, I feel strongly that there needs to be a shift in the movement towards activism.

But how does that happen? I return to the herding cats metaphor. Over the past several years, all kinds of different organizations for nonbelievers have either formed or come to prominence: the American Humanist Association, American Atheists, the Secular Coalition of America, the Center for Inquiry, the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the Secular Student Alliance, to name but a few.

Each organization is ostensibly working towards the same goal of making the country more welcoming for nonbelievers. However, all have different methods or are more focused on certain things: the FFRF is a legal body that works to maintain separation of church and state, the Secular Coalition lobbies in Washington, etc. With each group comes their own egos and beliefs, and thus, conflicts.

Back in October, the Boston Globe published a story about the Harvard Humanist Chaplaincy, an organization at that university which is “dedicated to building, educating, and nurturing a diverse community of Humanists, atheists, agnostics, and the nonreligious at Harvard and beyond.”

And, as you might have guessed from the name, their community takes on many aspects of what could be called, well, a church service. The head of the organization, Greg Epstein, has the title of chaplain. James Croft, who occasionally writes at In Our Words, says that just because they “leave behind their religious beliefs doesn’t mean they stop having those needs. But secular society has not yet come up with a way to give them moments of significance with the same level of beauty and care that goes into religious ceremonies. That is a big gap.’’

There was a lot of blowback on this issue from nonbelievers of all sorts, especially PZ Myers of Pharyngula, whose response you can read here. Rather than re-hash all of the arguments for and against, I want to take issue with the nature of the HHC’s language, which, above all, seems to be the main complaint from detractors of the organization. I should point out here that I am not a linguist. I’m not about to infuriate you by nitpicking every root and ending of a word and completely ignore the context. (I’ve just had a very infuriating run-in with a linguist in a Facebook debate. I’m not on the best terms with linguists right now). I’m much more interested in why the HHC is so desperate to align themselves with religious images.

Take, for instance, Croft’s quote from the paragraph before: Secular society, he says, does not offer the same kinds of significance and beauty that religious ceremonies supposedly provide. Not being a regular churchgoer myself, I’m relying on my experiences as a troublemaking seven year old who hated Sunday school — because I had books about the Big Bang and space travel which were SO MUCH COOLER than that Jesus fellow.  I just don’t understand what he means. To me, church has always looked like this.

Not too much exciting about your typical Christian service, I would wager. So, what is Croft talking about? The only thing that seems to make any sense in this context is the spiritual part of religion: the great sense of belonging, everyone believing in one thing, maybe being inspired by the tone or content of the man in fancy robes standing at the front of everyone. In essence, the irrational, hive-mind aspect of religion. The part that’s at the core of our resistance against religion.

The thing is, as far as I can tell, the HHC doesn’t really do that sort of thing. They have potlucks and philosophical debates and guest speakers who talk about things like discrimination against atheists in the military. The Globe article mentioned meditation, but that’s hardly supernatural in character; even fanboy darling Sam Harris does that kind of thing and attempts to explain it using neuroscience.

In essence, all very rational activities that are not based on any kind of dogma. Yet, both Croft and Epstein claim that the HHC fulfills that supposedly missing aspect of secular society, something that the latter claims in that Globe piece that groups like the Secular Student Alliance cannot. Yet, they deal in the rational, while that missing piece they talk about seems to be entirely irrational.

I’m not hating on the HHC here. I’m not interested in burning bridges or yelling at anyone unless they really deserve it. I think they’re a good organization doing interesting and important work, and boy, is that Chris Stedman a charming little hipster. (Seriously, though. He is.)

But I do find their language problematic for its religious connotations, especially in a movement that is so supposedly based on rationality as ours is. That “supposedly,” by the way, is a topic for a whole other righteous rage piece. But another time.

I hope this is taken as a constructive criticism, and if I have indeed mischaracterized James’ statement, I’d love for him to correct me. Print journalism these days doesn’t necessarily always quote in context. And I’m not PZ Myers, though I do love him. I’m just a perpetually furious progressive philosophy major searchin’ for some truths. Or something like that.

Andrew Tripp is a scoundrel, raconteur, and all around roguish individual who is studying Philosophy and Art History at DePaul University. He is the co-founder and President of the DePaul Alliance for Free Thought, the university’s first and only group serving its population of nonreligious students. You can find him on a barstool cheering on Manchester City Football Club on the weekends, at his blog dreamingofqueens.blogspot.com and on Twitter @ahtripp.

About these ads

8 responses to “When Rationalism Apes Dogma: Some Constructive Criticism for the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard

  1. I think that the point that James was trying to make is that secular society doesn’t provide a sense of community and connection that church communities do. I am an atheist ex-catholic, and while I also found church boring as a child, I find the great churches or Europe breathtaking. I find the ceremony and history of church services to be inspiring in an odd way, even though they hold no relevance for me in terms of belief (other than some lessons on morality that I think are relatively universal). In addition, I think it is a little intellectually dishonest to say that atheists are outside of, or above the “hive mind” mentality of religion. They may not hold services, but a great many atheists worship at the alter of one New Atheist or another, blindly defending their chosen leader no matter what he happens to say (I use “he” quite intentionally here).

    More broadly, I think (because atheism is, most certainly, a religion that is not a religion) that the HHC is simply employing terms that can be easily understood, particularly in the context of the type of work to which they have committed themselves.

    • “I think it is a little intellectually dishonest to say that atheists are outside of, or above the “hive mind” mentality of religion. They may not hold services, but a great many atheists worship at the alter of one New Atheist or another, blindly defending their chosen leader no matter what he happens to say (I use “he” quite intentionally here). ”

      Mason, I could not agree with you more. And I don’t think I said that atheists ARE outside or above the hive mind; rather, I think that they SHOULD, or at least aspire, to be. Four Horseman worship is one of the most troubling parts of the movement for me.

  2. Pingback: Temple of the Future·

  3. Pingback: Reason, Compassion and Hope in Community: A Response to Criticism for the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard « In Our Words·

  4. Pingback: Togetherness in Secular Society: My Response to the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard « In Our Words·

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s